Paddy on Lord's Reform

Sometimes there is a contributer to a debate that makes so much sense and makes the arguements so well you don't need to add comment. Therefore I think I merely need to give you the words of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, or just plain Paddy to most of us, from the debate in the House of Lords on Lords' Reform yesterday.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord; in my enthusiasm to get at the arguments, I attempted to barge in ahead of him. That was not my intention and I hope that he will accept my apology.

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that in a democracy the minority is always right. That thought has given me much comfort over the years as a Liberal, and it appears that it will have to give me comfort in this debate as well. I spent an engaging hour and a half yesterday in the House of Lords Library, looking through opposition speeches made in December 1831 to the Great Reform Act 1832 and to the Reform Act 1867. Five arguments were put forward. The first was: there is no public call for such reform beyond those mad radicals of Manchester. The second was: we should not be wasting our time and money on these matters; there are more important things to discuss such as the Schleswig-Holstein problem, the repeal of the corn laws or the crisis in the City that caused Anthony Trollope to write his wonderful novel.

A noble Lord: Not in 1832.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: No, but in 1867.

The third argument, which was put so powerfully—indeed, in bloodcurdling terms—by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, was that if we were to embark on this constitutional terra incognita, the delicate balance of the constitution would collapse around us; mere anarchy would rule upon the world.

The fourth argument put forward in those debates was, “No, no, let us not disturb the quiet groves of wisdom within which we decide the future of the nation by letting in the rude representatives of an even ruder republic. God knows what damage we shall do if such a thing should happen”. The last and fifth argument was the argument actually used by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, just a moment ago: “if it ain’t broke, don’t mend it”.

Those are the arguments that were put forward against the 1832 Act, the 1867 Act, the 1911 Act—every single reform that we have ever had—and they are the arguments that are being put forward now. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Perhaps I might explain before I come to the substance of the argument.

The first argument is that there is no public interest in this matter. Of course there is not; it is our business, not the public’s. The public have made it very clear that they do not trust our electoral system in its present form. Is there anyone in this Chamber who does not realise that the dangerous and growing gap between government and governed that is undermining the confidence in our democracy must be bridged? It must be bridged by the reform and modernisation of our democratic institutions, and we have a part to play in that too. This is not about what the public want, it is about us putting our House in order.

The second issue is that there are more important things to discuss. I do not think so. Frankly, we have been very fortunate to have lived through the period of the politics of contentment. The fragility of our democratic system has not been challenged because the business of government and democracy has been to redistribute increasing wealth. If we now come to the point at which we must redistribute retrenchment, difficult decisions, hard choices, I suspect it will come to something rather different, as we see on the streets of Greece today and as we saw on the streets of London not very long ago. This is very important.

The third is that we are embarking on a constitutional journey into terra incognita. Of course we are. We do not have a written constitution in this country. I wish we did, but we are told that the genius of our constitution is that it is unwritten, that it responds to events, that it develops, that it takes its challenges and moves forward. Oliver Cromwell did not have to say, “We will delay the Civil War until we have worked out the proper constitutional relationship between Parliament and the King”. In 1832 they did not say, “Let us hold this up until we have decided what proper constitutional balances would be achieved”. If you believe in the miracle of the unwritten constitution, you must believe that our constitution will adapt. You cannot argue that that is a good thing and then say that we cannot move forward unless we know precisely and in exact detail what will happen next. Of course this will change the balance between us and the other Chamber. It will not challenge the primacy of the other Chamber, but it will challenge the absolute supremacy of the other Chamber—that is called check and balance.

The fourth argument is that this will disturb the gentle climate of wisdom in this place. I have no doubt that there is unique wisdom here, although I have to say that I do not believe it is necessarily evenly distributed—maybe in some places it is, but not everywhere. However, I am not persuaded that there is less wisdom in the 61 second chambers that are elected, that there is less wisdom in the Senate of the United States, or the Sénat in France or the Bundesrat in Germany. I do not believe that the business of election will produce less wisdom than we have here now—rather the contrary. It is not wisdom that we lack; it is legitimacy. My old friend, Lord Conrad Russell—much missed—used to say, “I would happily exchange wisdom for legitimacy”, and I will tell your Lordships why.

This is where we come to the final point—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd: “If it ain’t broke, let’s not fix it”. It is broke; it is broke in two fashions. First, our democracy now and our institutions of democracy in this country do not enjoy the confidence of our people in the way they did. That confidence is declining. We have to be part of the reform that reconnects politics with people in this country. If we do not, our democratic institutions will fall into atrophy and may suffer further in the decline of the confidence of the people of this country. If noble Lords do not realise that, they do not realise just how difficult the current situation is in Britain.

We in this Chamber cannot leave this to others to do. We must be part of that reform, modernisation, reconnection and democracy. It is said that this House does its job as a revising Chamber well. So it does. It is allowed to revise, change, amend legislation, but is it allowed to deal with the really big things? It does the small things well, but is it constructed in a way that would prevent a Government with an overwhelming majority in the other place taking this country to an unwise and, as we now know, probably illegal war? No, it would not because it did not. I cannot imagine that the decision to introduce the poll tax and the decision to take this country to war would have got through a Chamber elected on a different mandate and in a different period, or if there had been a different set of political weights in this Chamber from the one down the other end.

The truth of the matter is that we perform the function of a revising Chamber well, but that is not our only function. We are also part of the checks and balances in this country. The fact that we do not have democratic legitimacy undermines our capacity to act as a check and balance on the excessive power of the Executive backed by an excessive majority in the House of Commons. That is where we are deficient and what must be mended.

The case is very simple to argue. In a democracy, power should derive from the ballot box and nowhere else. Our democracy is diminished because this place does not derive its power from democracy and the ballot box but from political patronage—the patronage of the powerful. Is it acceptable in a democracy that the membership of this place depends on the patronage of the powerful at the time? We are diminished in two ways. We are diminished because we do not perform the function that we need to perform of acting as a check and a balance on the Government, and we do not do so because we are a creature of the Government’s patronage. I cannot believe that noble Lords find that acceptable in this Chamber .

A noble Lord: Time.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me, I will finish now. I have already strained my time but I ask for patience. The Leader of the House is right. We have spent 100 years addressing reform in this House. It is time to understand why that is necessary—both to make our place in modern democracy and to fulfil our proper function to provide a check and balance on an Executive who may get too powerful. We turned our hand to this 100 years ago; it is time to finish it now.

Blogged Elsewhere: Is it normal to designate in one of two ways?

A little thought I've posted over at Northern Ireland for Reform

The other day on his blog Ian Parsley looked at what being considered “normal” is for Northern Irish politics, following on from Platform for Change’s AGM. One of his observations was:

"You cannot force Northern Ireland’s voters to adopt the English party system, which is the inherent logic of what most of those advocating “normal politics” are suggesting. Identity plays a part across the board, and we should not be too surprised that it is Northern Ireland identity which determined the Northern Ireland party line-up."

Yet Ian sees no issue in forcing parties to fit into a preconceived idea of what a Northern Irish political party should be, either Green or Orange. That surely is a dichotomy. There is a problem with Northern Irish, or should we say Assembly politics. Enshrined in the Belfast Agreement is the following clause in the safeguards under Strand One of the agreement about key decision making in the Assembly:

(d) arrangements to ensure key decisions are taken on a cross-community basis;

(i) either parallel consent, i.e. a majority of those members present and voting, including a majority of the unionist and nationalist designations present and voting;
(ii) or a weighted majority (60%) of members present and voting, including at least 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting.

Problems do arise for any party that doesn’t fit into either a unionist or nationalist designation

Read more here

Dave Yor're Part of the Institution Too

David Cameron launched an attack on Gordon Brown yesterday that may well be misconceived; He said:

"There is no chance Gordon Brown will do what is right and put the public interest before his own political interests. He cannot reform the institution because he is the institution: he made it. The character of his Government — secretive, power-hoarding, controlling — is his character.

"For the health of our democracy it is now essential that this shameless defender of the old elite goes as soon as possible."

Of course given the chance to vote on expenses reforms in 2008 twenty one of his own MPs voted against such reform. As Mark Pack points out their excesses were above the average for Westminster.

Only one party in 2008 voted for radical reform. Only one party said that the institutions were wrong and needed changing. It wasn't the Tories either it was the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives and David Cameron have hopped unto the bandwagon only because they have been caught with their fingers in the till. While the Liberal Democrats saw that the temptation was there and too great for some and wanted to take the sweetie jar away and make it more transparent just what was being claimed for and why.

You only have to look at David Cameron's promises on inheritance tax, he promises to provide free personal care if you can afford £8,000 on retirement to enter his insurance scheme, to see that he is as much part of the institution as he claims Gordon is. In his case it is pandering to the elite but it still part of the machine that has existed for too long.

Few Tools Beyond the Brute Force of Political Edict

So what do Labour do to get things done? We according to 60 Whitehall's senior officials they have 'few tools beyond the brute force of political edict'.

Indeed the findings for the Institute for Government also say that despite their grip on power there is a "conspicuous lack of a single coherent strategy for government". Indeed they call for a radical shake up of Whitehall if it is to function after the election, whoever is in power. As Nick Clegg has been saying recently the old ways are not working, they need to chance, even the Civil Servants are saying that, not a phrase we often heard Sir Humphrey saying in Yes Minister.

In the report Shaping Up: A Whitehall for the Future there is a damning assessment of Labour.

• Downing Street lacks a coherent strategy and is reduced to issuing "barmy ideas" as it squabbles with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Giving No 10 greater powers would inflict only more harm on the country.
• Ministers have lost their grip: "The machine is starting to pull away from them. There is a sense that you are at the end of an era."
• The Treasury has given up on its duty to control public spending because it has been "hijacked and turned into a social policy department, a welfare department, a reducing international debt department, an everything-under-the-sun department".

Indeed in the anonymous interviews with senior civil servants many of whom have served through all 13 years of Labour Government the director-general of one department said:

"What comes out of No 10 is lots of barmy ideas. It’s the worst possible kind of policy making, which is ‘here is a problem, let’s have a kneejerk reaction to it tomorrow on what we’re going to announce’ and quite frankly the less contact with No 10 the better."

Well Liberal Democrats have been saying for a while that Labour are thinking on the hoof. One example was their reaction to MPs expenses. Many of the things that Labour came up with in the interim do not make sense and lack the transparency that the public demand. For example the daily subsidence allowance is a flat rate, it is not based on the actual expense of things required. Jo Swinson told us the story last year of how post scandal she wanted to make claims for incidental food whilst travelling out of her offices etc which came to less than one day's allowance. The fees office wouldn't have it and asked her to claim for the 6 days in question in full!!!

They rejected Nick Clegg's call to discuss this, and indeed far reaching reforms. Reforms that would include reforming parts of Whitehall. Cameron of course wants to make change in Whitehall as well, however he merely wants to cut it incredibly without looking at functionality, indeed he is hinting that certain functions will be 'best' (in his opinion) carried out by being put to private tender. Don't think that is what the report is looking for in reform either when it says of the current set up.

"The fragmentation and lack of co-ordination at the centre of the civil service — the Treasury, No 10 and the Cabinet Office — leads to an administrative centre that is relatively weak. This curious situation has created a strategic gap at the heart of British government which inhibits the ability to set overall government priorities and translate them into action."

So if Labour live in the mess, and the Conservatives merely want to hive the responsibilities out, is this the way to reform governance. As Nick Clegg said on BBC's Hardtalk last week:

"David Cameron talks about change, but none of the Conservative MPs who avoided capital gains tax or made huge profits flipping their homes were forced to resign. He promised to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs but then the Conservatives voted against a law that would do just that. They have made it clear they will block attempts to make the voting system fair. They walked out on cross-party talks on party funding and refused to cap donations.

"Labour promised to clean up politics and make it fair but they failed. They wouldn't even push through reform after the expenses scandal. They went back on their promise to change the voting system.

"They failed to make the House of Lords elected and accountable to voters. They failed to clean up party funding because they rely on the unions. And they blocked attempts to give people the right to sack corrupt MPs. Labour will never change the political system."

So what is on offer to shape up Government. Again Nick said:

"We [Lib Dems] will introduce a fair voting system, ensure that MPs can be sacked by their constituents if they break the rules, return powers to local communities and stop tax avoiders from standing for Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords or donating to political parties."

There will also be plans to reform Whitehall it is part of the efficiency savings we've been crying out for since the start of the banking crisis reared its head. We recognise that of course Government departments serve a purpose but there are parts of it that need a shake up and some of the quangos are just a way to feather nests of those who want to influence. Government whatever its size isn't of itself bad which the Tories seem to think (i.e. Big is bad) but how it functions is important. That is the difference. That is real change.

Dave Leads by Chasing Down a Bolted Bandwagon

The man widely tipped as the next Prime Minister has yet again shown his lack of 'leadership' by following Nick Clegg's attack on the Labour publicising Queen's speech that I gave an alternative for yesterday.

Mind you Cameron's posturing is also just that, he says "What we need is radicalism and the Conservatives have proved that we are the only party to possess it."His radicalism is aimed at conquering the recession, social problems and the political system.

However, look at some of that radicalism, on the national debt, they are revisiting the child credit on the highest paid, good so are the Lib Dems. Yet they are also looking to reward the highest paid with perks in inheritance tax. They are looking to freeze public sector pay, the Lib Dems have also promised that for the top end jobs. The conservatives have promised to do so for all but the lowest paid 1 million, that is all the public sector workers paid under £18,000. It may be radical but is hardly improving the lot of social problems, especially for the low paid public servants who have to work in London.

On our broken society Cameron admits that his triumvirate teenage pregnancy, addiction and crime won't be fixed overnight. Strange that he is attacking Labour of bringing things they won't have time to achieve by offering up an alternative that is also unachievable. However, they are saying that any suitably qualified organisation can set up a new school anywhere they wished. Those that mean Ronald McDonald or Disney High Schools, after all those these multinationals have educational programmes within their corporate structure, indeed for that matter so do most multi-nationals.

If these qualified organisations can set up a school anywhere they want, surely won't they be looking for where they may most benefit to the organisation? Surely these will not be set up where the new school is most needed. Yes Cameron then mentions his pupil premium to encourage schools to take on pupils from less advantaged backgrounds, but what if these new schools are getting set up too far away to be of use?

As for Parliamentary reform he says he will cut ministers’ salaries by 5 per cent, scrap the perks and subsidies of parliamentary life, reign in the quango state and give power to local government, communities, families and individuals.

Ok the first is in line with Public Service restructuring the Lib Dems have proposed. But just what does Cameron mean by the perks and subsidies of parliamentary life? How far reaching those that stretch into necessary expenses to ensure that being a Member of Parliament isn't just a job for the well off, as it was in the 19th century? We've already seen that some of their radical reforms will hurt aspirant MPs from less well off situations, potentially losing a level of representative and experience to the House.

Unlike Nick who yesterday gave a number of concrete proposals to make real change is giving power to the people Cameron is (as the Tories have so long) being vague of the specifics. You really must wonder just when anything concrete, and fair, will actually come from the Tories rather than homilies and aspirational words on this.

Make It So - The Reforming Queen's Speech

The Labour Pre-Manifesto Queen's speech is being attacked in today's Independent by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg as a "waste of everyone's time" over the next 70 days of Government sitting before a General Election is called. Merely acting as window dressing for a lot of what Labour want to do beyond the date of the poll.

Here then is what Nick and the people want want to hear when she takes her speech out of the pouch on the throne in the Lords on Wednesday.

My Government would like to apologise to the my subjects for the way it has flagrantly mistreated them, and their money, over their expenses claims. They have listened to One's subjects are will be putting together a programme of wide sweeping reform to remedy this lack of trust, accountability and transparency before they come to One ready to go to the people in the spring.

Over the next seventy days my Government will start by enacting all the proposals of the Kelly Commission without exception. (gasps from those standing at the rear of the chamber). Oh yes you will. (aside: Can One still send them to the Tower?) As many as can be will be in place immediately shall be, the remainder will be enabled ready to come into effect on the resumption of the next Parliamentary session.

My Government realises though that the Kelly Commission report is merely a way of capturing the horse after it has bolted, so is proposing with the rest of Parliaments time to shore up the stable and paddock as well, so that the temptation or ability to bolt in this way is not presentable again to its members.

Therefore My Government will bring to both Houses legislation to curb the power of the whips offices, enabling more power to be placed in the hands of back bench MPs and therefore those of One's subjects whom they represent. Further to this they will present a Bill to set the length of each subsequent Parliament Term to occur on the first Thursday of may every four years thereafter, thus removing the ability of my Government to benefit from a favourable mood in the nation, something which their monarch has never had the ability so to do.

Legislation will also be brought before both Houses to install a Member's code of conduct, including an independent commission to adjudicate on members maintaining of said code. They will then also move a Bill that any Member in serious breach of the code, can when one in ten of their electorate deem fit face a recall election, in which they are entitled to stand either with the backing of their party, or falling that as an independent and any who choose to challenge them on their record.

This brings my Government to the part of how such elections will be carried out. Firstly by the end of this session my Government will pass a Bill to fully elect the House of Lords. The current Life Peers will take on the title of Working Peers. Each party representation will decide amongst their current Membership, by lot, three thirds measures of their membership. Their representation will be distributed evenly dependent on electorate across geographical areas in line with the European Election regions. The first third will present themselves to the public in 2012, for election for six years, the subsequent thirds in 2014 and 2016. The same rules of Code of Conduct and for procedure when they are breached shall also apply to One's Working Peers.

Finally my Government proposes to bring legislation to this place and the other place that all elections to seats in this Palace will be contested by proportional representation, using a Single Transferable Vote, for multi-member wards. The first for working peers will be in place in 2012, and the Boundary Commission with draw up 5-6 members constituencies for the lower chamber in time for the election that shall occur on the first day of May in the year of our Lord 2014 D.V. which may be the sixty-second year of One's reign if One is spared.

All this shall come to be for the sake of One's subjects, for sake of restoring trust in My Government and My Opposition and all who deem to represent the people of this United Kingdom in these places.

(At the point Her Majesty adjusted the royal robes, leaned forward slightly in the throne and looked down the chamber to where the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown, Rt. Hon. David Cameron, Rt. Hon Nick Clegg and other leaders were standing. Looking them in the eye she raised her right hand and pointed the four fingers in their direction) Make it so, number ones.

Update: See also Stephen Tall's reflections at Lib Dem Voice.

My Power2010 Ideas

I've been tagged to do the Power 2010 meme. I'm actually quite chuffed that the tag came not from the usual list of suspects but from Tim Trent who I first stumbled upon during the great Heinz caving in to homophobes debacle and have kept up to date with every since through various social networks etc.

The flying I picked up from their stand at conference which I came across the other day while tidying up says:

"POWER2010 gives you the chance to have a say in how our democracy works for us all. Do you want cleaner funding? Fairer voting? More accountability? You decide.

"Tell us your ideas for changing the way we run our country."

So what is my big idea? Some of the Lib Dems have already nicked some of the obvious stuff, desks in front of members, electronic voting, removing the whips' power, reducing numbers and fairer votes. Even some out there ideas like age group specific MPs. So I really have to get a long way outside the box.

1. Prime Minister's Questions: There is a hint in this title to what the purpose of this half hour on a Wednesday is all about. There are questions asked to the Prime Minister. One thing that is often lacking is Prime Minister's Answers in response. What I would like to see is the Speaker to sin bin the Prime Minister if he fails to answer a question. I know that sometimes he does not have an answer to hand and promised to write a response to the questioner. That should have a time limit on it too, and if an answer is not forthcoming the PM enters the sin bin as well.

What will the sin bin entail. I suggest a session on the Thursday, where the speaker will ask the question(s) that have not been adequately answered by the PM. If again he fails to answer the question Paxman like the Speaker will persist. I'm sure that after the first couple of occasions this happens the PM will actually start to give PMAs during PMQs.

2. YouTubing Democracy: I'm right behind Jo Swinson on this one I think it is appalling the way Parliament restricts online clips of goings on in the chamber just to a members own website. Ruling out sites such as YouTube which would have a search ability that when sed correctly when placing a clip could potentially reach a far bigger audience than BBC Parliament, or the people who keep visiting the MPs website. It would also allow others of us like They Work for You or bloggers to embed a clip an highlight the strength of some of our parliamentary debate.

3. Britain's Got Opinions: Currently we decide who puts forward a Private Member's Bill by ballot. Once an MP comes high up the list they then decide what policy to bring before the House. How about along side this having a Public's Bill. Either a list drawn up by the opposition parties and/or put forward by members of the public. Which are then voted on in a public vote. OK maybe we might get a John and Edward policy getting debated in the chamber but it would also connect with what the public actually want to see politicians make decisions on.

4. Job swap: The MPs take on a community volunteer from their constituency for a weeks work experience but in return they also spend a week volunteering with that charity or organisation during the summer recess. I think it will keep a number of MPs real, I know a lot already are but there are still some who see politics as what is in it for them rather than being there to help people.

So those are my ideas what I have to do now is tag five others. Well as there are five parties represented in Holyrood I'm going to tag five bloggers who have some connection to each of them. So over to LYS President Ruaraidh Dobson, James at TwoDoctors, NatStudent at Advanced Media Watch, Yapping Yousuf and recently (ie today) non-aligned Ben Austwick the Cardiff Blogger*.

*But he was on my potential list anyway.

Why We Shouldn't Stand Against Speaker Bercow

Darell Godliffe asks 'Why are We Not Standing Against Bercow?' stating that letting Nigel Farrage have a free run at Bercow would be wrong in his eyes.

I disagree, if we wanted an interim speaker only until the end of this Parliament we should have voted for Ann Widdecombe who stood with that as her platform in the recent election. Of course up in Scotland we will soon have the writ moved for the election to replace former Speaker Martin. The gloating that the SNP are doing that they came second here last time is ridiculous especially where you consider the opposition. They were less than a thousand ahead of the Socialist Labour candidate, the other parties were Scottish Socialist, Scottish Unionist, BNP and an Independent. The Scottish Socialist and Unionists had faced him as speaker in 2001 as well. In 1997 Betty Boothroyd was opposed by Independent Labour and the National Democrats.

People talk about the convention of not opposing the speaker but in 1987 Bernard Wetherill was opposed by representatives of both the other political groupings. Bernard had first been elected as a Conservative in 1964, was elected Speaker in 1983. In 1987 he faced Labour's Christine Patrick and the SDP's J.D. Goldie. Indeed it was the 1974 elections that you next find Labour and this time the Liberals opposing a sitting Speaker against Selwyn Lloyd. Although in 1979 George Thomas faced Plaid Cymru and the National Front.

So while the 'convention' for not standing against a sitting speaker is not as set in stone as some people may have you believe, it is none the less a precedent symbolising the apolitical nature of the role. Indeed it seems to be one, that even if contested, the constituents seem to back up as not one speaker seeking election since 1969 has polled less than 50% of the vote.

While Darell did say correctly that Nick Clegg did break convention by speaking out against the speaker I don't think playing party politics in the Speakers seat is the time or place to do so. We can take the case for reform in the commons up against a number of discredited MPs or their successors. Unless the speaker shows evidence of being partisan, biased or a detriment to Parliament, so far I don't think Bercow fits into any of those categories.

So let Farage have his day in the sun, only towards the end of the Euro campaign did anyone challenge him on UKIP expenses when his own are far for austere in nature.

It's Bonfire Night - A Beacon of New Hope

Before any of my readers panic thinking they have slept Rip van Winkle-like through to the 5th of November I don't mean that bonfire night. It is the eleventh night, one of those traditions of the twelve fortnight in July. Yeah the Northern Irish have a twelve fortnight in a 31 day month and not due to being bad mathematicians.

Every year in the loyalist areas of Northern Ireland piles of burnable material starts to emerge into the open air in late June early July. Often nearby a sofa will also appear so that those that end up 'guarding' and building the wood etc into a stack have somewhere to sit. Sometimes these stacks will tower over the nearby houses. But on occasion they are taken down to form barricades when things get really heated in the marching season. Instead of a guy there is often a Celtic shirt, or Irish tricolour or some other symbol of Catholicism on top of the pile when the touchpaper is lit.

Not all of this burnable material is often environmentally sound as often old tyres and other plastics are found in the stack. The noxious fumes can come from the fire well into the 13th on occasion. The fires have long been a symbol of strength by the Loyalist side of the community followed by the noise and colour of the banners at the marches to follow normally the next day, unless the sabbath intervenes. So often seen as a dividing, harmful emblem rather than one of the renewal that Northern Ireland is trying to undergo.

However, this year Belfast City Council, in conjunction with the Conflict Transformation Initiative, are promoting a new friendship beacon initiative. There will be six willow beacons across the city this year, including one encouraging in the Lower Shankhill, after a trail one last year in the troubled Woodvale area. Willow is used as the wood cut from a willow with fully restore itself by the following year making it carbon renewable. The aim is to make it a family and community friendly gathering which is both environmentally and socially responsible. Of course 6 beacons of hope for a new start is just a splash in the ocean, but it is a step in the right direction.

Don't Let Beckett Sit in That Chair

If Margaret Beckett is elected Speaker later today it will be the best rigged free vote in the history of the House of Commons if the rumours that are emerging today are true. Not least because the whips don't merely need to prevent MPs going into a particular devision lobby this time, they have to be sure that they vote in a secret ballot the right way.

This intimidation of voters at the ballot box was done away with for Parliamentary elections not last century but the century before that. At a time when Parliament is desperately in need of another reform act the one thing it doesn't need presiding from the Speaker's Chair is the one candidate that has not backed plans to remove the power of patronage from the Whips Office (which probably explains why the Government Whips and senior Tories are backing her) which would allow the MPs not the whips to select the committee chairs.

There is a call from more transparency in Government but as reported on my blog and elsewhere there are plans afoot for Parliament to retreat tortoiselike back into its shell. It poked its head nervously out over the parapit and didn't like the look in the voters eyes. The eyes that were angry because they had been promised something that was sadly lacking behind expectation when it came to be enacted upon.

The timetable of events today is:

9:30 Candidates have an hour to submit their nomination papers with 12-15 signatories (at least 3 from outside their party)

11:00 Names will be published around Parliament and on their website

14:30 Father of the House Alan Williams will preside over the speeches of the candidates

Approx 16:30 The voting takes place. There are 30 minutes for MPs to cast their vote in each round.

Any candidate getting less than 5% or who comes last is eliminated. New ballot papers will be drawn up and second and sunsequent votes will take place. (Expected time per round of voting 2 hours voting, counting and reproducing fresh ballot papers)

Once a candidate is sucessful there will be a motion put to the House that X shall be speaker. If contested there will be a vote. If motion is agreed to the traditional dragging to the chair will take place of the sucessful now, suddenly less than willing volunteer to the Chair will take place.

Brown's Last Ditch Roll of The Dice

Gordon Brown despite having on paper a Parliamentary majority is considering a deal to bring prominent Liberal Democrats into Cabinet in a 'game-changing move. However, his game must be well a truly up if he is again reconsidering this step.

When he first took over from Tony Blair the Prime Minister approached various senior Lib Dems in the Commons and Lords to take some role in his new administration. He was rebuffed from all sides. Now in his desperation of what he may be facing on Thursday in the European elections he is considering it again.

However, following Nick Clegg's comments from Thursday any such deal at this time will only be temporary. Gordon is trying to strike a deal with the party that is looking for reform of Parliament before going to a General Election because the other party is calling for one now. So Gordon if you want a deal with the Lib Dems it looks like you will setting forth a 100 day legislative timetable along the Clegg lines and facing your parties future in the Autumn at the earliest opportunity thereafter.

Those are the only conditions that the Lib Dems at this stage will possibly agree to work with Labour. Yeah in the meantime we may lend you Vince to help Alistair out over the economy, but most of the time we'll be pushing through the Third Reform Act(s) so that the people have more say, that their Parliament is more transparent and fair, and that they can take action if ever Parliament or Parliamentarians sink so low again.

This time Gordon we are playing hardball, we won't be pussyfooted around like the eventual empty promises of Blair following the Cook-Maclennan talks. We want those changes plus more now. All or nothing and we can't guarantee you survival even if you do.

You Ermine a Laugh

Today it is being reported that 52 Labour MPs are currently seeking to be on a Brown resignation honours list for elevation to the Upper Chamber after the next election. That is one in every 7 MPs that were elected under Blair in 2005. But this number is the backbenchers not even counting the prominent Cabinet Members who would expect ennoblement when they finally leave the commons. Many of the 52 have not yet announced that they will be stepping down but are at this point intending to stand again.

The fact that so many are seeking elevation shows that Labour is merely going through the motions until the election is called, but also that the system is flawed. People who know nothing other than politics in the Labour party are wanting to stay on in the office down the corridor. Admittedly it is a rather splendid office building, and the work is very similar to what they do now. But unlike currently is not up the whim of the 70,000 or so people who give them a review every 4-5 years it is a job for life.

The fact that these people may well be failing to satisfy the electorate yet maintain a seat in 'the other place' shows just how much reform is needing throughout the whole of Parliament. Some of these 52 may well be those who are stepping down or who may be forced out on the back of the expenses scandal. They should not have an automatic or semi-automatic right to be appointed to an allowance system worh £45,ooo per annum on top of their MPs pension and parachute payment.

We need reform in the Lords and the Commons. Nick Clegg is right that much of the stuff that needs to be done has been debated in depth in the past. But the 'honourable members' have done all they can to preserve their own path to easy street. Unless they wake up, smell the sulphur from the torches of the approaching hoard and take action they won't be preserved.

In launching the Take Back Power agenda for change yesterday Nick has shown what is required, achievable and doable. As Millennium said yesterday politics is the 'art of the possible' some of the reforms (such as AV+ instead of STV) do not go as far as Lib Dems want, but they are things on which there has been some level of agreement in the past. That is how the 100 days target can and should be met. We're looking for consensus, a consensus for change and the clock for that 100 days starts ticking on Monday when our MPs return.

But Tom Harris Where Were You Last Summer?

I cannot believe that Tom Harris has taken the view that the reforms suggested by Nick Clegg are political posturing. For a start isn't he listening to what the people are saying and the Lib Dems have long said that a lot of things he has highlighted need changing for transparency, fairness and for the good of democracy.

But the line he is taking is quite two faced. It's all well and good Tom Harris saying now 'if the existing [interim] system had been put in place years ago, virtually none of the excesses we’ve seen would have taken place.' But where was he last July when the issues he outlined as key were put to the vote. He wasn't in the division lobby that is for sure.

Indeed the fact is most of his own party and the official opposition voted against the changes he is now a year on so supportive of. So the Lib Dems were the ones moving with the agenda back then rather than the Johnny come latelies like Harris and Cameron. The fact is we need to do more than we wanted a year ago, the public demand it and the Lib Dems are still driving the agenda to action rather than platitudes and lip service.

The King's Address to his Fluffy Kingdom

As regular readers and cuddlers will know I generally leave the political stuff to Mister Stephen. However, my good friend and fluffy pachyderm Mister Millennium Dome has spoken I'd like to urge you all to read it.

Hamble, Jemima, Humpty Dumpty, Big and Little Ted. Gordon the Gopher, Ed the Duck. We need your support as establishment characters within the BBC to get the voice and views of Captain Clegg saviour of our democracy unto the airwaves, tellybox, wirelessbox, interwebby.

Over at ITV I evoke Bungle, George and Zippy to do the same.

Garfield, Snoopy, Fred Bassett and the rest should rise off the cartoon pages unless their newspapers cover the story of the latest reformer and what he has to say about he proposes we do.

Captain Clegg has not just spoken like Mr Balloon of the Tory party, he set out the gameplan and is telling MPs to get kitting up and into action. Mr Balloon is merely talking about what he is thinking of doing next season, if we are lucky. But it's just a wee bit of trimming around the edges and no real shake up in team selection, their training or lifestyle. The fans, sorry forgot the voteypeople aren't really fans right now, are looking for a radical overhaul. They don't want their MPs to wallowing at the bottom but they'd like to think they can soar up the league to the very pinnacle. That's not just a few Tell-lie-graph saints but the who lot sitting on the benches.

So may I echo the Trunk call of my friend and encourage all the fluffy kingdom to persuade their adoring owners to take action to encourage their MPs to sort out this mess we find ourselves in. Take Back Power. Let's make the next 100 days count for something great a Third Reform Act(s) even more far reaching and necessary than those of 1832 and 1867.

We're Not Going on a Summer Holiday

We need parliamentary reform, we need it now, we shouldn't leave for holidays until it is sorted that is what Nick Clegg is saying in the Guardian. While David Cameron is outlining what he would do if he was elected as Prime Minister and Alan Johnson is saying what he would do possibly to set out his leadership challenge the Lib Dem leader is saying to his fellow MPs we need to get this done before we can move on.

Setting out his vision for a new politics setting out a hundred day plan that will give the people the right to recall a corrupt MP, abolishing the House of Lords, getting corrupt money out of politics and electoral reform that gives everyone a voice. When he broke convention to speak out against the Speaker he was already say that the conservatism and convention of the Houses of Parliament were a hindrance that the people did not understand and that MPs chose to hide behind. Listening to Julie Kirkbride this evening, and reading what my own MP Michael Connarty has had to say it is clear that many have yet to learn. He says:

"People will say it isn't possible – parliament can't act that quickly. I say the innate conservatism that marks out our political establishment is part of the problem. Let's stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it.

"Momentum will ebb away unless we act quickly. Delay would be a victory for those who want to confine change to the bare minimum – the two establishment parties who will talk up reform long enough for the storm to pass, then kick it into the long grass for good."

And referring to David Cameron's comments about open-source software, new select committee chairs and legislative text messages says these will not rescue British democracy but merely provide cover to maintain the status quo. That status quo is that the two major parties have hung unto power in their own fiefdoms or shires in safe seats. As Mark pointed out in his excellent post the safer the seat was envisioned to be often the more corrupt the Member.

How can this be done in 100 days?

Well a lot of the issues have been thrashed out party funding reform was outlined by Sir Hayden Phillips only the Tories walked out. Lords reform has been agreed with in principle, and to avoid an increased hegemony can be elected like the Senate in the USA on different boundaries and with different times for electing them than the lower house. While he welcomes Alan Johnson's adoption of the Jenkin's solution of AV plus he acknowledges this is not the best situation where as STV allows the people to vote for the person not just the party and the party approved candidate/list.

Can this be done in 100 days?

During the 2001 election William Hague said there was only so many days to save the pound. But really we do only have so many days to save British democracy. But Nick thinks not only that it can be done but that it needs doing concluding:

"Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics. These months could become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of scandal. Let us seize, not squander, the opportunity for change."

So the MPs should forget about getting on an all-singing, all-dancing double decker to head off to their first or is that second home, you know the one in their constituency. Or even to some other home where they can take flight.

They're not going on a summer holiday,

Heads down working for a week or

Thrasing out reform in their holiday

Working out how to serve you-ou-ou

As they really ought to.

Read also Paul Walter's take on it including the Cleggmeister's timetable. Darell Goodliffe who's willing to bar the gates for longer as some stuff is missing. Jamie Saddler's love (platonic) for Nick Clegg.

UPDATE: You can find out more on the Campaign Website

It's A Hard Knock Life

If any of you were reading my Tweets last night you will know that I encountered the shortest, angriest ever encounter that I've ever had on a doorstep while wearing my yellow rosette.

But it isn't all bad news. On the way back to the cars Fred Macintosh was telling me that the number that were going out unto the doorsteps with him had been increasing as the campaign went on. The other thing was that when a lot of people say I'm not voting for anyone and you ask why, the main answer is that all this expenses debacle should have been dealt with before now. Wearing your yellow rosette you can at least reply back citing dates and times that your party voted for transparency, for the end of claiming on furniture, for full disclosure or expenses, and receipts on all items claimed. In other words for Lib Dems at the moment one of the easiest voters to appeal to is actually the disheartened voters, the non-voters, the antis.

It makes me proud of my party for the stance they have long held that with notable exceptions, and yes I have had to agree about certain names on doorsteps, our party is not milking the gravy train. As a whole they have fought to reform the way Parliament works and that goes far beyond the current expenses issues. We want every vote to count, through fair voting systems. We want more transparency and understanding from the public of how our Parliamentary system works. For example you can climb on top of the Bundestag and look down into the main chamber yet Westminster is trying to prevent MPs using video footage of themselves on their own sites or You Tube channels.

We need a modern, effective Parliament which can be shown to be beyond reproach. That way we can re-establish public confidence. Last night on Radio 4's PM show I heard the analogy that our constitution, like our British nature, is largely jotted down on the back of envelopes as it would do for now. Now certainly is the right time to do something about that. Why are we scared of a written constitution anyway. The American one which is in the National Archive where President Obama was speaking yesterday is a fluid document. It can and has been amended as needs for change arise. But the basis is set and the people know that.

Tick Tock....When Will Speaker be gone?

After this afternoon's statement followed by stumblings over just what sort of motion was being raised against him surely the clock is ticking on Michael Martin speaker of the house of commons. But just when will it stop ticking. I see there being 6 options.

1. He will go himself before tonight. He'll realise just how much feeling there is against him. Maybe the party leaders will even take up the offer to see him early and they may all already be gathering to advise him to go.


2. Before the House rises in tomorrow. Having had a night to think about it, he will go before the Motion of Confidence is present on the order paper.


3. He will be ousted during business tomorrow. If he fails to allow a debate on the motion of no confidence in himself there may well be a sucession of points of order asking him to move to the debate. The order of the House will be lost and the Government will have no option but to move the debate they wanted to avoid will procede and the Speaker will go dishonourably on a vote.


4. He will go in two days time when he does convene the meetings of the leader. Already the actions of Cameron and Brown are tacit indications that their support has been lifted so as no to hinded others to make their choices. That meeting should be the final nail in the coffin if he survives that long.


5. He may come to an agreement that he will go at the Summer recess ready for a sucessor to be selected when the House returns.


6. The final option which seems most unlikely is that he will survive until the General Election is called. However, if he lasts that long the public and many in the House will not be happy.

These are the various choses. I've set up a poll in the side bar take a vote as to how long you think we'll have the current speaker.

Open Letter to the Speaker From Lib Dem PPCs

It of course is not just sitting MPs that are being effected by the fallout over MPs expenses and the speakers poor handling of the whole scenario it is those that are seeking to stand as an alternative.

Therefore the letter that follows from 56 Lib Dem PPCs in an election year in unprecedented but shows that we need to clear this whole shebang up now or as soon as possible so that those who will be standing in the next General Election (an I hope myself to be included in that number) are not being tarnished by the sins of our forebears.


Dear Mr Speaker,
As Parliament continues to be dragged down by the allowance system, and its rules, the role of those in public service across the country is being undermined.

We are Liberal Democrat candidates seeking to be elected to Parliament and yet we find ourselves disappointed, and frustrated, at the way in which this matter is being handled. Every day our residents are telling us loudly that this must stop and this must stop now.

Three things stand out:

• The resistance to the releasing of these documents and the attempt to exclude Parliament from the Freedom of Information requirements
• The way in which Norman Baker and Kate Hoey were treated when they sought to raise legitimate concerns
• The fact that, through you, Parliament could now release the information into the public domain and cut short this parade of drip-fed news and empower MPs and citizens through a new transparent relationship.

It is vital that Parliament must become transparent and accountable now. We call on you, as Speaker of the House, to do everything within your power to force the full publication of all expenses immediately. We also call on you to accept the independent review of MPs expenses and salaries chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly.

If you are unable to do this we then ask you to consider your position. Time is running out for politicians of all parties to repair the damage to our democracy.
Yours sincerely

56 Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates

Ed Fordham, Hampstead and Kilburn

Sal Brinton, Watford

Andrew Simpson, Northampton North

Bridget Fox, Islington South & Finsbury

Duncan Borrowman, Old Bexley and Sidcup

Steve Goddard, Oxford East

Adrian Collett, Aldershot

Adam Carew, East Hampshire

Gareth Epps, Reading East

Sally Morgan, Central Devon

Sue Doughty, Guildford

Rebecca Hunt. Chatham & Aylesford

Sarah Carr, Hereford and South Herefordshire

Guy Voizey Canterbury and Whitstable

Jo Shaw, Holborn and St Pancras

Liz Leffman, Meon Vallley

Merlene Emerson, Hammersmith

Sandy Walkington, St Albans

Richard Burt, West Worcestershire

Caroline Pigeon, Vauxhall

Kevin Lang, Edinburgh North & Leith

Andrew Dakers, Brentford and Isleworth

Andrew Duffield,Hexham

David Kendall, Brentwood and Ongar

Ann Haigh, Epping Forest

Simon Wright, Norwich South

Liz Simpson, Tonbridge and Malling

Sam Webber, Bromley and Chislehurst

Rabi Martins - Luton North

Greg Stone, Newcastle EastT

heo Butt-Philip, Bridgwater and West Somerset

Dave Radcliffe, Birmingham Selly Oak

Richard Clein, Sefton Central

Mike Cox, Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Andy Stamp, Gillingham & Rainham

Stephen Lloyd, Eastbourne & Willingdon

Mark Blackburn, Westminster North

Denis Healy, Hull North

Robin Lawrence, Wolverhampton South West

Alex Feakes, Lewisham and West Penge

Andrew Falconer, Brighton Pavilion

Dave McBride, Orpington

Nigel Quinton, Hitchin & Harpenden

Alan Beddow, Warwick and Leamington

David Goodall, Southampton Itchen

Ryk Downes, Leeds Central

Chris Took, Ashford

Peter Wilcock, Saffron Walden

Karen Hamilton, Birmingham Perry Barr

Qurban Hussain, Luton South

Keith Angus, Hackney North and Stoke Newington

Stephen Robinson, Chelmsford

Mike Bell, Weston-super-Mare

Dave Raval, Hackney South and Shoreditch

Fred Mackintosh, Edinburgh South

Munira Wilson, Feltham and Heston

Paul Zukowskyj, Welwyn Hatfield

Mr Speaker to Speak; But What?

Morten Morland from The Times 18 May 2009

Michael Martin the Speaker of the House of Commons has announced he will address MPs later on today. With growing support across all parties for a vote of no confidence in him how he handles this and what he says will be of absolute importance.

Yesterday Nick Clegg broke with the convention of the Leaders of the main parties not criticising the Speaker when on the Andrew Marr show he called for him to go saying:

"I do not think the Speaker should be made a scapegoat...for the individual failings of many MPs.

Equally I do not think we can afford the luxury of a Speaker, who is supposed to embody Westminster, who has been dragging his feet on transparency and greater accountability in the way MPs receive their expenses."

The reason Clegg gave for breaking this convention is that the system is broken and Parliament needs a clean start. The people are expecting that but Martin has done all he can to avoid transparency even taking legal action to prevent Freedom of Information requests being made public, as well as his recent attack on Kate Hoey in the chamber.

But the expenses issue Nick says is merely the tip of the iceberg that is threatening to sink Parliament. He went further calling for the electorate to have to right to call an election of any member found to have done wrong by the Committee on Standards. Also calling for a cutting in the size and power of Whitehall and giving new freedoms including money raising to local communities. Also the need for a written constitution is required. As Nick said there are all these conventions and unwritten rules that hog tie too often Parliamentary reform the very things that lead to lack of understanding and comprehension from the public.

So Nick is the only party leader who is grasping the depth that this issue is going and prepared to stand up to say and do what needs to be said and done. He is leading from the front with decisiveness, authority and clarity. The others are trying to look like they are aware of the need for change but are trying to appease too much their own MPs through fudging around the issues and ignoring the people who's representatives the Members are.

However, it is how Mr Speaker Martin uses his public utterances later that is crucial. If he comes out fighting aiming to cling on without observing his surroundings he will merely be like Captain Smith firing up the engines to continue to run Parliament head on into the iceberg. What the fall out of him staying on and fighting the groundswell of loss of support may well have equally Titanic repercussions.

Clegg Calls for a Quarter Less MPs

With 150 less Members of Parliament the tax payer would be saved about £30m annually. Nuick Clegg has told Radio 4's PM programme today.

It was part of a reform programme to make our electoral system both fairer and more representative. Measures including more decentralisation, caps on donations to £25,000 per individual and a £10m annual spending limit per party.

Francis Maude of the Conservatives also said his party were striving for such reforms and that Labour was "the roadblock to reform" by refusing to accept a cap on Trade Union affiliation fees.